Posted on 03/25/2003 1:17:01 PM PST by vannrox
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:01:59 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
A classified document signed by President Bush specifically allows for the use of nuclear weapons in response to biological or chemical attacks. Apparently changing a decades-old U.S. policy of deliberate ambiguity, it was learned by The Washington Times.
The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force including potentially nuclear weapons to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies, the document, National Security Presidential Directive 17, set out on Sept. 14 last year.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
That being said, however, in today's political climate, there are "classified" documents (the sort that we signed our lives away for our access and knowledge, the kind that we inventoried numerous times a watch), and "classified" documents which are designed to be "accidently leaked" to the press.
The question we should be asking is " are we willing to back up our words with the blunt-ended black shape being released from the rack, with the cables pulling free, and the drogue 'chute deploying ( a rather beautiful sequence when seen in slo-mo film).
As much as we (our leaders, including the C-in-C) have discussed the "liberation" of of Iraq, I have felt that the option of retaliation if Chembio were used has always been in place. There is no other choice. We can't back down. Once the threat was made from the Iraqis, we had absolutely no other course, than to authorise release under certain circumstances. Green Glass does not kill US Servicepersons, provided they remain clear of the lethal radius, and watch their radiation monitors.
Given the combination of events happening over the last few days, and the irregular force activity, combined with the threat of Nerve agent deployment, we had to be prepared to respond in kind. Any less would be a tremendous loss of credibility.
Keep the Faith for Freedom
Greg
I can't help but wonder if one of the purposes of MOAB is to provide deniability for the use of small tacnukes....
Nah, we'd just vacinate everyone, which would take some time, but not all that long. The world did get on quite well before the vacine was invented you know. Well, maybe not "quite well", but it got along. The only reason we are vulnerable to smallpox now is that vacination worked so well in the past that the virus died out in wild for lack of vulnerable hosts.
Still, I'm hoping I've got some immunity left from my mid 80s military vacination for smallpox. (I checked my vacination card a couple of months ago, just to be sure when I'd had it)
Hmm, don't look now but we already are. We are the only country to use nukes in anger for any reason. Wiped out two cities we did, at a time when neither our territorial integrity nor the existance of any ally was so threatened.
Saddam and his underlings should contemplate that fact before using WMDs on our troops. Don't Mess with the US, is the lesson to be (re)learned.
Probably not, but you can and should nuke that battalion with an appropriate sized weapon.
Neither MOAB nor the older Daisy Cutter are FAEs.
Not really, they're all Republican Guard or Special Republican guard officers, and already set for war crimes trials.
We don't. At best the MOAB is somewhat less powerfull than the puniest nuke. Fuel Air Explosvies and hyperbaric bombs also don't come close.
I would never make light of this somber declaration, but it must be made clear to these idiots that we mean business when it comes to these types of nasty, dirty, indicriminent weapons. Chemical and biological weapons can kill and destroy many innocents especially in a wind swept terrain like the deserts of Iraq. A tactical nuclear weapon, used by trained professionals can actually be much more effective, and much safer (if there is such a thing). The design of that weapon is a confined reaction over a measured target with little "fall out". They would most likely be hydrogen war heads that produce much less radioactive fallout and a much higher heat and percussion effect. The warheads are small and have been calculated, many times over, to cover a specific amount of ground. Their range of contamination has been engineered into the weapon, because they were made to use in battlefield conditions.
If they use any WMD on us we can lay waste to the Republican Guard around Bagdad in a heart beat, and the residence of Bagdad will not be harmed in any way, but they will be treated to a Billion dollar fireworks show, and an Imodium moment. We are the ones that worked the engineering for all these years (during the cold war) for the use of these weapons. All you ever heard about was the huge ballistic missles that would destroy large cities and lay waste to continents. Well, we have them too, but we have a real advantage, and we always have, over any enemy with the little, surgical, tactical nuclear warheads.
As few a 6 to 8 tactical nuclear weapons detonated over the Repulican Guard around the city of Bagdad would wipe them out, to the man, and cause little contamination (long term) to the area of detonation. Further they would cause little contamination to the city of Bagdad and no "deadly" contamination to the area. The radiation levels would be twice background for a few days (depending on the wind) but well within the load a human or animal could bear in a one exposure dose.
The point in this "rant" is this. A tactical nuclear weapon is far from the ballistic missle of indiscriminent mass destruction, it is surgical, and accurate, but it must only be used when we are forced to use it. Therefore, the President has made the correct, and logical decision. If they use chemical or biological weapons, they will be met with a tactical nuclear attack.
There is another reason that this is logical. If chemical and biologic agents are released the contamination could kill many times fold. To neutralize this contamination heat is the most efficient. The extreme heat from a nuclear reaction kills any biologic threat, and that same extreme heat disassembles chemical molecules into their basic components, rendering them harmless. To take out the enemy and sterilize the contamination at the same time.
These are awesome weapon systems, they sould be used ONLY in the event of attack by the enemy of equally devastating weapons. That's simply what our President just said.
Amen, GW, kick their butts!
Question marks because I am uncertain as to the implication and seek enlightenment.
--Boris
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.